TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of ₹ 32,30,685/-. The basis for the same, the reasons and also the working of the disallowance are in correct and improper. 2. By order dated 16.4.2009 the aforesaid ground of appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal. Similar ground was raised by the assessee in A.Y 2001-02 in ITA No.2775/M/2005. By the very same order dated 16/4/2009 the Tribunal dismissed the said ground also. The assessee preferred appeal being ITA No.467 of 2010 and 412 of 2010 before the Hon ble Bombay High Court against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal in A.Y 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively. By order dated 8/2/2011 for A.Y 2001-02 the Hon ble High Court remanded the issue to the Tribunal for fresh consideration with the following observations. 3. As re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and adjudicate the matter. 10. In the case of Moodi Pvt Ltd (supra), the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court held as follows: In respect of the interest paid on monies borrowed for purchase, of shares of A Co, the Tribunal held that the claim of the assessee should be allowed under section 57(111) of the Income-tax Act 1961, since the moneys were borrowed for ,purchase of shares from which the assessee expected to receive dividends, and hence the expenditure was clearly laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning income On a reference Held, affirming the decision of the Tribunal, that the expenditure on interest paid on borrowings for purchase of shares of the managed, company W Co., was allowable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e purpose e purchase was a entirely different matter; (ii) that the only conclusion, on the facts, was that these in vestments were made ,for the purpose of earning income or dividends or for profits or gains; (iii) that, therefore, the interest paid by the assessee on moneys borrowed for the purchase of shares could be set off against its other Income under section 24(1) of the Act-. . 13 The Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in Phil Corpn Ltd (supra), held as follows:- The reasoning of the Tribunal that the overdraft was not operated only for investing in the shares of subsidiary company and the fact that it was also used for investment in the shares of the sister/subsidiary company to have control Over that company and, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
